"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

I perhaps see what you are getting at. Do you perhaps mean some kind of logical system in which the actual statements themselves occupy a 4D environment? Perhaps a crude 2D analogy may be a magic square, if one inserted some representation of the various summation operations required and some overall equality comparison. I can see the appeal of such an idea in principle, but I am fairly confident that anything that could be done in this complex environment could be reduced back to regular mathematics, which is built from basic principles of logic and transcends the written form we choose to represent it in. Perhaps some things might have nice symmetry properties or something in a more complex representation, but they'd be pretty impossible to work with logically so we're really better off coming up with ways to represent these kinds of things in more standard notation.

ages ago I was researching the notion and I found a link to a mathematician apparently of some repute who was experimenting with a new system of math. But I cannot remember the guys name.
The end result of the research was that it had been disbanded or shelved, even though the practical utility was deemed tremendoous they couldn't get it to function in any significant way....
I'll keep searching my files for t'he info...but dont hold much hope.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I perhaps see what you are getting at. Do you perhaps mean some kind of logical system in which the actual statements themselves occupy a 4D environment? Perhaps a crude 2D analogy may be a magic square, if one inserted some representation of the various summation operations required and some overall equality comparison. I can see the appeal of such an idea in principle, but I am fairly confident that anything that could be done in this complex environment could be reduced back to regular mathematics, which is built from basic principles of logic and transcends the written form we choose to represent it in. Perhaps some things might have nice symmetry properties or something in a more complex representation, but they'd be pretty impossible to work with logically so we're really better off coming up with ways to represent these kinds of things in more standard notation.

a good anaolgy yes....
a rubics cube of infiinite variabiltity with a single or more constant to drive it's results.

[replication of the universe and life in general in one math process]
damned if I can rememeber the detail I was playing with years ago....

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think he's smoked a lot more of whatever it is he smokes today.

hee hee hey man...youre the one who belives in flying pigs çalled photons not me!

I prefer pink elephants personally but thats another story and another theory....ha

 

[AlphaNumeric]

damned if I can rememeber the detail I was playing with years ago....

Are you claiming you have done calculus now?

hee hee hey man...youre the one who belives in flying pigs çalled photons not me!

Do you think people will just not notice you're ignoring all my questions and challenges? If you're so cock sure about your standpoint, why are you not answering my questions?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Are you claiming you have done calculus now?

Do you think people will just not notice you're ignoring all my questions and challenges? If you're so cock sure about your standpoint, why are you not answering my questions?

hey man you want to distract from the issue go for it....the pig is still flying any ways....

you have a big question to answer and you can't answer it so you distract away from the issue...
do you think people can't see that.
I don't have any credibility to loose but by golly gosh, sheezam, gee wililikers you do!
And to me and to others reading this thread your evasiveness means you are loosing credibility real quick.

$100.00 usd AlphaNumerico!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

hey man you want to distract from the issue go for it....t

Asking you to back up your claims is 'distracting from the issue'? What do you call your repeated posting of that picture? Relevant? Hardly.

you have a big question to answer and you can't answer it so you distract away from the issue...
do you think people can't see that.

The fact you have either refused to accept, refused to read or are unable to understand the replies and evidence I've given you for the existence of the photon doesn't mean it isn't there. If you'd read up on the history of quantum mechanics you'd have heard of experiments which give the particle nature of light, such as the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering via xrays. But you ignore all this, in the same way a creationist ignores all evidence for evolution and instead demands something he knows noone has done. You demand a particular experimental result, as if it and only it can be evidence for the photon, just as they demand 'transition fossils' as if it's the only way to prove evolution.

I don't have any credibility to loose but by golly gosh, sheezam, gee wililikers you do!

Well at least you admit you don't have any credibility. And I have no worries about losing credibility, anyone who wants to read about experiments which determine the particle nature of light, ie it being a photon not some kind of classical wave disturbance, can open books or read journals. Those are two things you have refused to do.

And to me and to others reading this thread your evasiveness means you are loosing credibility real quick.

I haven't been evasive. I've retorted your lies, pointed out your mistakes, repeatedly asked you questions you have ignored.

$100.00 usd AlphaNumerico!

Still trying to emulate creatonist Kent Hovind I see. If showing a photon in transit is the only way to give evidence for a photon then I'm sure you'll be able to give a purely wave mechanics explaination for Compton scattering. Hell, if you can give an accurate model which is purely wave based I'll give you $500. How about that? You also need to give a working predictive model for your 'mass inerta resonance' (or whatever it was) to show how what science thinks is a photon moving through a substance is actually just the substance oscillating.

Hell, make it $5000. See it's easy to do that, to simply come up with an unfair, undoable challenge. In actual fact all you'd need to do to show the current QED model of the photon is insufficient is to find one electromagnetic phenomena it cannot explain, you'd not need to come up with an alternative model yourself, but few people realise that. Your 'challenge' focuses on one experiment, in exclusion of all others, irrespective of how much evidence they give to the notion of the photon. If you'd managed to refute all of them, I'd be willing to accept science needs to address your challenge but you haven't. Infact, you're almost entirely unaware of the evidence for the photon as you've done zero research.

And as for me evading your questions, why do you continue to refuse to tell me what you have actually done in the 20 years of work you claim to have put into your interest in science? Any calculus? Any experiments? Why are you evading that question?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Asking you to back up your claims is 'distracting from the issue'? What do you call your repeated posting of that picture? Relevant? Hardly.

well back up your claim that a photon that travels across space and the $100 is yours...it is that simple.

The fact you have either refused to accept, refused to read or are unable to understand the replies and evidence I've given you for the existence of the photon doesn't mean it isn't there. If you'd read up on the history of quantum mechanics you'd have heard of experiments which give the particle nature of light, such as the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering via xrays. But you ignore all this, in the same way a creationist ignores all evidence for evolution and instead demands something he knows noone has done. You demand a particular experimental result, as if it and only it can be evidence for the photon, just as they demand 'transition fossils' as if it's the only way to prove evolution.

not a question of refusing the evidence as you have yet to provide any. All the above are evidence only of mass effects and you know it so we still wait for evidence of a traveling photon...and it will be a long time comming yes?

Well at least you admit you don't have any credibility. And I have no worries about losing credibility, anyone who wants to read about experiments which determine the particle nature of light, ie it being a photon not some kind of classical wave disturbance, can open books or read journals. Those are two things you have refused to do.

eh!.... what ever you say Alpha, make up your own story any ways you like to...

I haven't been evasive. I've retorted your lies, pointed out your mistakes, repeatedly asked you questions you have ignored.

the $100 on my desk proves you have....simple

Still trying to emulate creatonist Kent Hovind I see. If showing a photon in transit is the only way to give evidence for a photon then I'm sure you'll be able to give a purely wave mechanics explaination for Compton scattering. Hell, if you can give an accurate model which is purely wave based I'll give you $500. How about that?

going to get alot more than a mere $500 and you know it.....

You also need to give a working predictive model for your 'mass inerta resonance' (or whatever it was) to show how what science thinks is a photon moving through a substance is actually just the substance oscillating.

do I?

Hell, make it $5000. See it's easy to do that, to simply come up with an unfair, undoable challenge.

Finally you are admiting that the flying pig called Photon may actually be non-existent? well done me boy well done!

In actual fact all you'd need to do to show the current QED model of the photon is insufficient is to find one electromagnetic phenomena it cannot explain, you'd not need to come up with an alternative model yourself, but few people realise that. Your 'challenge' focuses on one experiment, in exclusion of all others, irrespective of how much evidence they give to the notion of the photon. If you'd managed to refute all of them, I'd be willing to accept science needs to address your challenge but you haven't. Infact, you're almost entirely unaware of the evidence for the photon as you've done zero research.

naah ....just need a pig...oops! a photon and we are home and hosed....

And as for me evading your questions, why do you continue to refuse to tell me what you have actually done in the 20 years of work you claim to have put into your interest in science? Any calculus? Any experiments? Why are you evading that question?

how does a mythical photon have any relevance to me at all...it is all about you and your scientific collegues, got very little to do with me....

 

[AlphaNumeric]

well back up your claim that a photon that travels across space and the $100 is yours...it is that simple.

What you mean is 'Back up your claim in a single specific way, because I refuse to accept any other form of evidence'.

not a question of refusing the evidence as you have yet to provide any

So it's my fault you haven't read the literature? It's my fault you said "There's no evidence!!" despite you not looking for any? It's my fault you're dishonest? The photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, hard xray scattering in colliders, gravitational lensing, time variable light speed through BECs. All of them give evidence that either light traverses the distance between emission and detection or that it's a quantum or both. None of them have been retorted by you.

All the above are evidence only of mass effects and you know it

No, I've already told you that oscillations in matter are known as phonons and are well understood and are easily distinguishable from photons. You are simply lying. Unless you can demonstrate how phenomenologically photons and phonons are the same thing?

so we still wait for evidence of a traveling photon...and it will be a long time comming yes?

No, you wait for a very specific kind of evidence, while ignoring all others. You're more than a century late when it comes to evidence for the photon.

eh!.... what ever you say Alpha, make up your own story any ways you like to...

Sort of how you just say "It's a mass effect" in orer to justify ignoring evidence for the photon?

the $100 on my desk proves you have....simple

I've given you a list of phenomena which are evidence for the photon, you fail to retort them. The fact is you're the judge of your own challenge. If you were being rational and fair you'd put the $100 in the hands of a learned person and we'd submit evidence to them. The fact you're the judge just allows you to say "No, it's just a mass effect" for everything, regardless of how relavent and compelling the evidence is.

If you're honest, why don't you contact someone whose unbiased and has sufficient scientific knowledge to be able to understand the kind of evidence involved and see if they will administer your challenge for you. Otherwise you're just judge and jury.

going to get alot more than a mere $500 and you know it.....

No, I firmly believe you're just completely ignorant of any science, you lie about your 'research' efforts and you don't bother to look at any evidence. If you're right, why don't you submit your work to a journal, you'd make a lot more than $500 for knocking over a pillar of physics.

Finally you are admiting that the flying pig called Photon may actually be non-existent? well done me boy well done!

Why do you bother with such pathetic lies? It's clear what my point is, I'm not saying "The photon doesn't exist" I'm saying that you have deliberately constructed a challenge you know you won't let people win, as you move the goal posts, ignoring any other kind of evidence and since you're the judge you can just say "Nope, failed" and proclaim noone has ever offered good enough evidence. Seriously, read up on what people say about Kent Hovind's challenge and you are doing exactly the same.

aah ....just need a pig...oops! a photon and we are home and hosed....

Photons like those seen in particle colliders, photoelectric effect, BECs, measured by CCDs and used in experimental quantum computers? Yeah, if only we'd got such things as those....

how does a mythical photon have any relevance to me at all...it is all about you and your scientific collegues, got very little to do with me....

It's got nothing to do with you because nothing you have whined about is a problem.

And you continue to evade my question on what your 20 years of research involved. Really now QQ, do you think noone will notice I have to ask you many many times because you refuse to reply? Do you think noone will notice you evade questions which ask you to put up or shut up about your work? You whine about scientific honesty and evading questions but you're more guilty of that than anyone else in this thread.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What you mean is 'Back up your claim in a single specific way, because I refuse to accept any other form of evidence'.

So it's my fault you haven't read the literature? It's my fault you said "There's no evidence!!" despite you not looking for any? It's my fault you're dishonest? The photoelectric effect, Compton scattering, hard xray scattering in colliders, gravitational lensing, time variable light speed through BECs. All of them give evidence that either light traverses the distance between emission and detection or that it's a quantum or both. None of them have been retorted by you.

No, I've already told you that oscillations in matter are known as phonons and are well understood and are easily distinguishable from photons. You are simply lying. Unless you can demonstrate how phenomenologically photons and phonons are the same thing?

No, you wait for a very specific kind of evidence, while ignoring all others. You're more than a century late when it comes to evidence for the photon.

Sort of how you just say "It's a mass effect" in orer to justify ignoring evidence for the photon?

I've given you a list of phenomena which are evidence for the photon, you fail to retort them. The fact is you're the judge of your own challenge. If you were being rational and fair you'd put the $100 in the hands of a learned person and we'd submit evidence to them. The fact you're the judge just allows you to say "No, it's just a mass effect" for everything, regardless of how relavent and compelling the evidence is.

If you're honest, why don't you contact someone whose unbiased and has sufficient scientific knowledge to be able to understand the kind of evidence involved and see if they will administer your challenge for you. Otherwise you're just judge and jury.

No, I firmly believe you're just completely ignorant of any science, you lie about your 'research' efforts and you don't bother to look at any evidence. If you're right, why don't you submit your work to a journal, you'd make a lot more than $500 for knocking over a pillar of physics.

Why do you bother with such pathetic lies? It's clear what my point is, I'm not saying "The photon doesn't exist" I'm saying that you have deliberately constructed a challenge you know you won't let people win, as you move the goal posts, ignoring any other kind of evidence and since you're the judge you can just say "Nope, failed" and proclaim noone has ever offered good enough evidence. Seriously, read up on what people say about Kent Hovind's challenge and you are doing exactly the same.

Photons like those seen in particle colliders, photoelectric effect, BECs, measured by CCDs and used in experimental quantum computers? Yeah, if only we'd got such things as those....

It's got nothing to do with you because nothing you have whined about is a problem.

And you continue to evade my question on what your 20 years of research involved. Really now QQ, do you think noone will notice I have to ask you many many times because you refuse to reply? Do you think noone will notice you evade questions which ask you to put up or shut up about your work? You whine about scientific honesty and evading questions but you're more guilty of that than anyone else in this thread.

$100 says you have not provded anything other than evidence of effect and not causation.
You are simply repeating evidence of effect..


you claim causation with the traveling photon but do not support that causation model with evidence and you call yourself a scientist...bah!

So when you can support the causation you constantly refer to in a way that is worthy of a scientist then the $100.00 is yours and I will rest my case.

The key element of evidence that is missing is evidence that the cause of the light effect, the traveling photon, actually travels across vacant space from A to B.

If you are happy with the fact that just about all of science relies on a causation model that hasn't been evidenced then you may as well pack it in and not bother posting but I reckon AlphaNumeric you are gravely concerned about it...which is why you are avoiding the issue.

 

[BobG]

You know saying you'll pay $100 when you are provided with evidence of photons does not strengthen your case if you ignore what anyone says.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You know saying you'll pay $100 when you are provided with evidence of photons does not strengthen your case if you ignore what anyone says.

provide evidence of causation [traveling across space] and not effect Bob and I'll listen I can assure you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

maybe you'll come back and say
"but it is just a causation model that happens to work really well. There is no evidence to support the travelling photon aspect, none what so ever"
And I will say well fin-----ally we hit reality.

and I get to keep my $100

so does light move[ across space from A to B]?

answer: according to our model that we can't provide evidence for, it does.

question:
why was this thread moved to pseudo science ?....because you have lost sight of what a model is and what reality is... that's why and the thread poster Geistkiesel deserves an apology.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

provide evidence of causation [traveling across space] and not effect Bob and I'll listen I can assure you.

Provide a model of 'mass inertia resonance', or whatever you called it, which shows observed phenomena such as photons through BECs are not actually photons. You claim that I know it's not a photon but the effect you claim, so I assume you can provide a model which demonstrates a photon isn't needed?

An experimentally verified predicting model has been put infront of you as evidence of the photon. Justify why you ignore it.

And again :

nd you continue to evade my question on what your 20 years of research involved. Really now QQ, do you think noone will notice I have to ask you many many times because you refuse to reply? Do you think noone will notice you evade questions which ask you to put up or shut up about your work? You whine about scientific honesty and evading questions but you're more guilty of that than anyone else in this thread.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Provide a model of 'mass inertia resonance', or whatever you called it, which shows observed phenomena such as photons through BECs are not actually photons. You claim that I know it's not a photon but the effect you claim, so I assume you can provide a model which demonstrates a photon isn't needed?

An experimentally verified predicting model has been put infront of you as evidence of the photon. Justify why you ignore it.

And again :

nd you continue to evade my question on what your 20 years of research involved. Really now QQ, do you think noone will notice I have to ask you many many times because you refuse to reply? Do you think noone will notice you evade questions which ask you to put up or shut up about your work? You whine about scientific honesty and evading questions but you're more guilty of that than anyone else in this thread.

I think I have mentioned enough times in this thread reasons why the current abstraction [ model ] for the light effect causation is inappropriate.
maybe you can tell me why I think the model is inappropriate and show the viewing public your comprehension skills.
This thread has been about discerning the difference between abstraction and reality and it is only now that you have shown any understanding of that difference.

Prove that you can deal in theoretics and abstraction [ aka light effect model] properly and maybe we can get into a discussion of alternatives to the light effect causation model you have so vigourously defended with out any evidence to support it.
Just because it "fits" doesn't make it real. Just because it accommodates most data doesn't make it any more than an idea, an abstraction a mere speculation.

When you can demonstrate your ability to comprehend the difference between abstraction, speculation, theorising, hypothesising and reality maybe we go further.
The first step would be to apologise to the thread starter Giestkiessel for your and the boards inability to grasp the differences as mentioned above.
There is in fact a model that does considerably better than the current model in explaining not only light effects but gravitational effects and constants such as inertia realy well.
But there is no way it is going to be made available for discussion in such a closed minded and surreal environment as this one.

Admit your mistakes AlphaNumeric as I try to do and we can progress to something considerably more interesting than "piss farting" around with your inability to see the distinction between abstract theoretics and reality.

The light effect model of the travelling photon is pure abstract theoretics as no evidence is available to ground it in reality and as you know given the nature of the proposition it never will be able to be grounded in reality . Why? Becasue it simply is wrong and the travelling photon doesn't exist.
Thus it can never be evidenced properly as the casuation of the light effect.

"a mere religious icon is our flying pig called photon." Yoda says to Luke Skywalker discussing the ancient history of science, as their ship entered hyperspace....

"the religious people must be having a great chuckle thinking: "ahh I see God has many ways of keeping his foot in the door. The scientists believe in him any ways with out realising it...just a use of the name Photon or God thats all and proves yet again the need to worship is indeed a predetermined imperative within all of us"

The only reason they would be able to say this is that you have lost your ability to distinguish between fantasy [ abstraction, theoretics, speculation] and reality.
Demonstrate an ability to dabble in theoretical physics and we shall see whether you are capable of dealing with the alternative to the light effect CAUSATION abstraction currently in vogue.

Because at the moment all you have got is a flying Pig called Photon as central to scientific credibility.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Provide a model of 'mass inertia resonance', or whatever you called it, which shows observed phenomena such as photons through BECs are not actually photons. You claim that I know it's not a photon but the effect you claim, so I assume you can provide a model which demonstrates a photon isn't needed?

An experimentally verified predicting model has been put infront of you as evidence of the photon. Justify why you ignore it.

And again :

nd you continue to evade my question on what your 20 years of research involved. Really now QQ, do you think noone will notice I have to ask you many many times because you refuse to reply? Do you think noone will notice you evade questions which ask you to put up or shut up about your work? You whine about scientific honesty and evading questions but you're more guilty of that than anyone else in this thread.

the hypothesis is called "Zero Point Theory" and involves what a layman would consider to be "mass inertia resonance over zero space that has acquired infinite dimension due to the presense of mass.
And it will be properly evidenced before presentation...and you will get to hear alot about it sometime in the near future...and what's more even though I am the author it wont be writen by me as I obviously lack the scientific language skills.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So...we are happy with the fact that just about all of current science relies on a causation model for the light effect that has yet to be evidenced properly?

"Our poor flying pig called Photon is getting awfully lonely"

:bugeye:

 

[geistkiesel]

The fact you have either refused to accept, refused to read or are unable to understand the replies and evidence I've given you for the existence of the photon doesn't mean it isn't there. If you'd read up on the history of quantum mechanics you'd have heard of experiments which give the particle nature of light, such as the photoelectric effect or Compton scattering via xrays. But you ignore all this, in the same way a creationist ignores all evidence for evolution and instead demands something he knows noone has done. You demand a particular experimental result, as if it and only it can be evidence for the photon, just as they demand 'transition fossils' as if it's the only way to prove evolution.

Still trying to emulate creatonist Kent Hovind I see. If showing a photon in transit is the only way to give evidence for a photon then I'm sure you'll be able to give a purely wave mechanics explaination for Compton scattering. Hell, if you can give an accurate model which is purely wave based I'll give you $500. How about that? You also need to give a working predictive model for your 'mass inerta resonance' (or whatever it was) to show how what science thinks is a photon moving through a substance is actually just the substance oscillating.

Hell, make it $5000. See it's easy to do that, to simply come up with an unfair, undoable challenge. In actual fact all you'd need to do to show the current QED model of the photon is insufficient is to find one electromagnetic phenomena it cannot explain, you'd not need to come up with an alternative model yourself, but few people realise that. Your 'challenge' focuses on one experiment, in exclusion of all others, irrespective of how much evidence they give to the notion of the photon. If you'd managed to refute all of them, I'd be willing to accept science needs to address your challenge but you haven't. Infact, you're almost entirely unaware of the evidence for the photon as you've done zero research.

And as for me evading your questions, why do you continue to refuse to tell me what you have actually done in the 20 years of work you claim to have put into your interest in science? Any calculus? Any experiments? Why are you evading that question?

In actual fact all you'd need to do to show the current QED model of the photon is insufficient is to find one electromagnetic phenomena it cannot explain, you'd not need to come up with an alternative model yourself, but few people realise that. Your 'challenge' focuses on one experiment, in exclusion of all others, irrespective of how much evidence they give to the notion of the photon. If you'd managed to refute all of them, I'd be willing to accept science needs to address your challenge but you haven't. Infact, you're almost entirely unaware of the evidence for the photon as you've done zero research.

”

naah ....just need a pig...oops! a photon and we are home and hosed..

..

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
well back up your claim that a photon that travels across space and the $100 is yours...it is that simple. ”

What you mean is 'Back up your claim in a single specific way, because I refuse to accept any other form of evidence'.

Your pedancy is showing. QQ said what he said and if i were you I would take him at face value. I think your mother spoiled you rotten. You really think that your degrees, and profession qualifies you as 'scientist', when you only project yourself as a wanna be.

Quantum Quack
so we still wait for evidence of a traveling photon...and it will be a long time coming yes?

No, you wait for a very specific kind of evidence, while ignoring all others. You're more than a century late when it comes to evidence for the photon.

Methinks QQ was objecting to the lack of physical support for the assertion that ‘photons move’ and that he has little to say regarding the nature of the photon itself. If you could reign in your bluster you might learn something.. . .nah, wishful thinking, you already know it all..

Photons like those seen in particle colliders, photoelectric effect, BECs, measured by CCDs and used in experimental quantum computers? Yeah, if only we'd got such things as those....

Very specifically, how does particle collider physics demonstrate photon motion?

It means there's some 'absolute' reference frame in the ., a globally defined constant inertial frame which is somehow more special than any other inertial frame. Which is incompatible with relativity

Take a spin-1 particlke and send it through a Stern-Gerlach segment. A generic S state particle can be said to obey the following: S|T|S where the verticle e marks locate the limits of the Stern-Gerlach T segment. . This simple statement says that the T state retains information of the previous base state S such that in the absence of a magnetic field the retained information operates as a force that reorients the temporary T state back to the S state.

Now inser physical obstructions in two of the possible three trajectlory channels in the T segment. This process is described as S| T + d|T. The '+
d' represents the addition of the obstructions. Now, why does the particle when obstructed exit in a T state? and when unobstructed the particle exits in a S state?

Can your QM explain this unambiguously?

AN EXPERIMENT: An inertial frame has a light emitter which occasionally gives off a pulse of light. As the frame is moving the point from wher the light is emitted is stationary spot in space. remember, as AE stated, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the origin of the light. Therefore, every light pulse identifies a specific place and time in which an event occurred. The earth is moving in such a trajectory that a local determination cannot distinguish curved motion from straight line motion. Pick a spot on the planet and use this spot as an absolute reference frame for all time. Measure the motion of the photon pig relative to the spot selected as the reference point. Likewise all motion can be referenced to the point selected..

If the postulate for SR regarding the equivalence of inertial frames then why does the twin paradox resolution require a different law of motion than for its so called equivalent frames?. That is, if the twin’s acceleration, which does not affect time dilation or frame shrinking, nevertheless is effected by the sheer activity of constant motion is an unambiguous statement of reality, then the twin in the accelerated space ship is able to detect his slower growth rate relative to his bro on the home planet, then SR needs another standard gedunken to parade in front of the unwary students either trying to grasp the silliness of SR, or are restraining themselves from the loud guffaws. .

Feynman uses a very strange linguistic prop in describing SR. For instance an observer on a train is justified in considering the train at rest and the embankment moving. The train observer can also consider the train moving and the embankment at rest and he would be equally justified in doing so as considering himself at rest. Here, however, SR goes like the Drano commercial song ; “there goes relativity down the drain.“

When a train observers sees the reaction of accelerometers on the train as it leaves the station, and is reported to by the station master that no embankment accelerometers were activated as the train left the station then when the train observer balances the stationary presumption vs the moving presumption what option would a thirteen year old student opt for? As a system of scientific structuring that is?

SR is analogous directly with Ptolemaic models of solar system motion. The famous circles within circles was a cute trick designed to provide information of planetary position in space and time. Some modern analysts have even asked whether the Ptolemaic technicians actually believed the planets moved in the circular complexity trajectories described by Ptolemaic theory. The consensus of this enquiry was that it didn’t make any difference to those using the information as the information worked. To some satisfactory level of acceptance. It took over as hundred years to integrate Keplerian physics into the mainstream as those habituated with Ptolemy had no reasons to change what was working. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Getting back to light, when I see something away from me I immediately sense that I am with the substance that I observe, while the physiologists tell me what I see is an illusion and that all before me is really occurring only in my head. The light that supposedly striking my optic nerves is the process ending in my seeing what is really out there.

JS Bell proved that a QM model void in expressed nonlocal force centers is an incomplete model.

I suppose you should be recognized for your persistence and standing by your beliefs, but caveat emptor : who was it that warned us of the dangers threatening truth when he warned, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies” Answer: F. Nietzsche. AN did you get the correct answer to the question? We n\use the honor system here.
:shrug:

 

[kurros]

I like thought experiments. There seem to be a few holes that can be picked in that one however:

"The earth is moving in such a trajectory that a local determination cannot distinguish curved motion from straight line motion"

This is not a well defined trajectory. Do you mean straight line as in following a spacetime geodesic, i.e. a path of free-fall? Because that is as straight as lines can get in curved spacetime (which the Earth sits in). Curved motion can then only mean "motion which deviates from a geodesic", and a local determination can easily distinguish these two kinds of trajectory (inertial forces are experienced on the latter trajectory and not the former).
The same thing applies in flat space, except it is more obvious what "straight line" means.
You could also mean that the motion is such that one cannot distinguish between curved space and flat space, perhaps that one following a geodesic in spacetime cannot tell that it is anything other than "straight", and thus think spacetime is flat. This third option is probably the most interesting so lets go with that.

"f the postulate for SR regarding the equivalence of inertial frames then why does the twin paradox resolution require a different law of motion than for its so called equivalent frames?"

The symmetry is broken because the twin who flys off into deep space then comes back must experience periods of acceleration, which matters a lot. I.e. he is not always in an intertial reference frame. In fact his definition of "the present" is altered by switching frames when he turns around to come back, which causes him to "skip" a bunch of time which passes back on Earth. Wikipedia has a good explanation of this.

"That is, if the twin’s acceleration, which does not affect time dilation or frame shrinking..."

Acceleration most certainly affects time dilation. I don't remember what it does to lengths etc however. Times slows down in a gravitational field, and according to GR there is no difference between acceleration and being in a gravitational field (i.e. accelerated frames possess gravitational fields), so if you accelerate your time slows time.

"When a train observers sees the reaction of accelerometers on the train as it leaves the station, and is reported to by the station master... "

The scenario doesn't require any acceleration, it is just a train shooting through the station at constant velocity. You can replace it with two asteroids hurtling past each other if potential acceleration concerns you.

"Getting back to light, when I see something away from me I immediately sense that I am with the substance that I observe, while the physiologists tell me what I see is an illusion and that all before me is really occurring only in my head. The light that supposedly striking my optic nerves is the process ending in my seeing what is really out there."

I don't see the relevance of this discussion.

Why are you asking how QM explains phenomena that are explained by SR? (perhaps with a little GR thrown in to allay ones fears about accelerating frames).

I'm not really clear on what you think the problem is. You'll have to state your question again more clearly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I like thought experiments. There seem to be a few holes that can be picked in that one however:

"The earth is moving in such a trajectory that a local determination cannot distinguish curved motion from straight line motion"

This is not a well defined trajectory. Do you mean straight line as in following a spacetime geodesic, i.e. a path of free-fall? Because that is as straight as lines can get in curved spacetime (which the Earth sits in). Curved motion can then only mean "motion which deviates from a geodesic", and a local determination can easily distinguish these two kinds of trajectory (inertial forces are experienced on the latter trajectory and not the former).
The same thing applies in flat space, except it is more obvious what "straight line" means.
You could also mean that the motion is such that one cannot distinguish between curved space and flat space, perhaps that one following a geodesic in spacetime cannot tell that it is anything other than "straight", and thus think spacetime is flat. This third option is probably the most interesting so lets go with that.

"f the postulate for SR regarding the equivalence of inertial frames then why does the twin paradox resolution require a different law of motion than for its so called equivalent frames?"

The symmetry is broken because the twin who flys off into deep space then comes back must experience periods of acceleration, which matters a lot. I.e. he is not always in an intertial reference frame. In fact his definition of "the present" is altered by switching frames when he turns around to come back, which causes him to "skip" a bunch of time which passes back on Earth. Wikipedia has a good explanation of this.

"That is, if the twin’s acceleration, which does not affect time dilation or frame shrinking..."

Acceleration most certainly affects time dilation. I don't remember what it does to lengths etc however. Times slows down in a gravitational field, and according to GR there is no difference between acceleration and being in a gravitational field (i.e. accelerated frames possess gravitational fields), so if you accelerate your time slows time.

"When a train observers sees the reaction of accelerometers on the train as it leaves the station, and is reported to by the station master... "

The scenario doesn't require any acceleration, it is just a train shooting through the station at constant velocity. You can replace it with two asteroids hurtling past each other if potential acceleration concerns you.

"Getting back to light, when I see something away from me I immediately sense that I am with the substance that I observe, while the physiologists tell me what I see is an illusion and that all before me is really occurring only in my head. The light that supposedly striking my optic nerves is the process ending in my seeing what is really out there."

I don't see the relevance of this discussion.

Why are you asking how QM explains phenomena that are explained by SR? (perhaps with a little GR thrown in to allay ones fears about accelerating frames).

I'm not really clear on what you think the problem is. You'll have to state your question again more clearly.

Two questions:

1] If we consider all SRT gendankens to be the equivelant to the twins gedanken as all clocks are aging as the twins do and as they are predicted to do then why is acceleration important to just the twins gedanken and not allowed or important to all gedankens involving relative velocity frames?
2] How do you feel about the fact that the causation model of the light effects observed has not been evidenced? And how does this relate to the validity and credibility of Special relativity?

 

[kurros]

"1] If we consider all SRT gendankens to be the equivelant to the twins gedanken as all clocks are aging as the twins do and as they are predicted to do then why is acceleration important to just the twins gedanken and not allowed or important to all gedankens involving relative velocity frames?"

Well because not all SRT gendankens are equivalent to the twins gendanken. Even the class of gendankens involving two observers in different frames is not always equivalent to the twins situation, because the details about which frames they are in and at what time matter. The twins situation involves 3 distinct frames, one on earth, one travelling away from earth and the other coming back towards earth. This is not true for a lot of other gendanken, like the train gendanken. There is no discussion of the train coming back to the platform to compare times. If the train indeed came back then one would find it had experienced less time, just as in the twin 'paradox'. In the twins situation the acceleration isn't really the important part, it is the swapping between frames, which inevitably requires some acceleration. I just included the acceleration in anticipation of the scenario changing to something more complex, like the space-faring twin zooming off in a big loop or something. Actually the situation is a lot more interesting if one has a spacetime with geodesics that intersect at multiple places (like in orbit around something). Then you can have the train shoot off in one direction and return to the platform without having to experience any acceleration. But of course the whole thing is then in a non-inertial frame.

"2] How do you feel about the fact that the causation model of the light effects observed has not been evidenced? And how does this relate to the validity and credibility of Special relativity?"

After all this discussion I'm still not very clear on what you mean by that. But strictly speaking SR is not dependent on any theory of light. It's main postulate is about the *speed* of light, which is a statement about spacetime, not the nature of light. It is our theory of light that then goes and says that light travels at this speed. If the universe had no photons in it SR could still exist just as validly. SR is only a theory of spacetime, not of light. Light is just the most convenient method of probing spacetime in SR. The real nature of light (as best as anyone knows) is described by quantum field theory, of which SR is just one small (but important) part.